Ginacue popped over ivory, hopefully much or all fake.

[Pangit]

Over 600 KG's of Ivory seized in Cambodia

Link

It's time to read between the tea leaves boys. Times change and what was once legal and accepted by some is not what the general population likes today. Get used to it.



Cambodian customs Friday seized more than 600 kilograms of illegal ivory in a container packed with corn that had languished unclaimed at a port for two years after being shipped from Africa.

The haul was made after officials decided to open the container, which had been left at the southwestern port of Sihanoukville weeks after a crackdown on ivory smuggling in 2014.

"The shipment arrived at the port more than two years ago... but nobody has come to claim it," Kin Ly, head of the port's customs office.

"The elephant tusks were hidden underneath sacks of corn," Kin Ly said, adding that the ivory had been shipped from Africa and was destined for a third country.

He was unable to say which country or provide an estimate of how much the tusks worth.

In 2014, Cambodia seized more than three tonnes of ivory -- the country's largest-ever haul of elephant tusks -- hidden in a container of beans.

The same year, Cambodian police arrested two Vietnamese men who were trying to smuggle nearly 80 kilograms (180 lbs) of illegal ivory from Africa.

Kin Ly said the container may not have been claimed because of links with those smuggling groups.

Conservationists have voiced concern that Cambodia is emerging as a key transit route for African ivory, which often makes its way to wealthy buyers in Vietnam or China.

Poaching of elephants has risen sharply in Africa to meet demand in Asia.

More than 35,000 elephants are slaughtered each year on the African continent from an approximate population of more than 450,000 in the wild.

 

[chefjeff]

And I'm dumbfounded that people don't understand animals die to provide ivory.

If that makes me a creep, I'm totally ok with that.

Don't forget they die to provide cue tips, too.

But gee, leather isn't endangered....golly, a guy might want to understand why that is. Might.


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.

He MAY have violated some unlawful legislation, but for him to commit a crime, there's gotta be a victim. There's not victim here, ergo, no crime.

Your appeal to an unlawful authority doesn't change any of that.

fyi,


Jeff Livingston

 

[jimmyg]

He MAY have violated some unlawful legislation, but for him to commit a crime, there's gotta be a victim. There's not victim here, ergo, no crime.

Your appeal to an unlawful authority doesn't change any of that.

fyi,

Jeff Livingston

Our "Masters" have determined that the elephant is the "victim".

 

[Grantstew]

He MAY have violated some unlawful legislation, but for him to commit a crime, there's gotta be a victim. There's not victim here, ergo, no crime.

Your appeal to an unlawful authority doesn't change any of that.

fyi,


Jeff Livingston

Why not export some cocaine, no victim, ergo, no crime?

Guessing you are not a lawyer

 

[lfigueroa]

Let me get this straight. A study comes out slamming the US over their enforcement of the importing and exporting of illegal ivory, and the spokesperson for the agency under fire vehemently disagrees? Shocking.

Did you read the full article, Lou? Or just look for the loophole?

The quote proves the study in the article is of dubious validity, per US authority. Ergo, you have not, yet, provided a credible source. Anything else?

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.

Once again you fail to read the pertinent documents. Within the F&WL press release it says, "A criminal complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court."

Lou Figueroa

 

[Chopdoc]

He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.

How do you know on what date the transaction occurred?

You don't.

As I said. Your throttle is stuck open.



This thread is way out of hand and not in the least because of statements like your own. I am not singling you out. There are numerous out of hand posts.


This is an important topic for cue aficionados and cue makers. I do enjoy some rational discussion and debate about it.

As for the cue maker, I wish him the best and hope he is on the right side of the law.


To make a point: I do not mention his name in my posts on this matter. This forum is indexed by Google and it's bad enough he has a legal battle. There are fringe elements involved in this controversy that can get on Google and read what we are posting here. I do not wish to fan flames. As a physician and former researcher I have experienced bomb threats on laboratories by radical activists, so I am careful to avoid fanning flames.


.



.

 

[Grantstew]

I dunno when the transaction took place, but Chady Lui and Azen (Zen Cues) were arrested late April when the cues were discovered in their luggage. Chady is still being held, not sure about the other guy.

 

[zpele]

I'm sure I'll get some flack on here for this but I've never understood why people are ok with using ivory in a cue unless it is that legal stuff from a long time ago.

So many people try to justify it for some reason- maybe to make themselves feel better.

If Ernie did commit a crime he should be tried and serve out his sentence. It doesn't matter if you commit a crime without knowing. I hear he is a nice guy and I hope he is proven not guilty but in this case the law is justified in my opinion and it all is there to prevent hunting of an endangered species. Elephants are endangered because of us humans, God forbid we try and rectify our mistake by not using a part of an elephant in a cue. Just use one of the myriad other ivory substitutes and get over it.

 

[chefjeff]

Why not export some cocaine, no victim, ergo, no crime?

Guessing you are not a lawyer

Why not?

Guessing you're not a libertarian.


Jeff Livingston

 

[Poolplaya9]

You purchase a gun and you sell it to someone and he make a holdup
in a bank Are you responsible for that

Contrary to what a lot of people keep saying here, the answer is sometimes "yes", you are in fact sometimes responsible for what somebody does with the item you sell or give them. What makes the difference is typically what knowledge you had of what they planned to do with said gun (or ivory).

If a guy comes to buy a gun from you and you sell it to him and then he goes and kills his wife with it are you responsible? Nope, not if you didn't know and there is no way you should have known what he planned to do with it. But if he comes to you and says he is going to kill his wife with it, and you sell it to him, then you are in fact responsible for and will be charged with murder (or sometimes accessory to murder) and will often even get the same sentence he does. You were in fact a part of the murder in such case and are guilty of murder in the eyes of the law.

Same with ivory. If Ernie was selling ivory to someone in California, which was legal, and he did not know or should not have known that it was to be exported, then if it ends up getting exported then Ernie did nothing wrong and broke no law. He did not know and there was no reason he should have known. But if he knew or should have known that the cues were to be illegally exported then he is in fact a part of the act of illegally exporting the cues and is guilty of breaking that law.

If the transaction went something like this, Ernie's goose is cooked:
Chady email: Yo Ernie, Chady from China here. Finally sold out the last batch of cues I got from you, need to get another batch. I will taken whatever you can get me.
Ernie email: Ok, well you know the drill. Like always you are going to have to come pick them up in person here in Cali. You know I'm not going to be the one that ships them out of country.
Chady email: Sounds good, just booked my flight, see you on the 19th!

Obviously the feds think they have some good evidence that Ernie knew that Chady might intend to export the cues, and if they actually do have that evidence, Ernie is guilty of breaking the exportation of ivory law because he was a part of doing exactly that, exporting ivory. To be clear I am not saying that is what he did as I have no idea as I wasn't privy to all of the transaction nor do I know what kind of evidence the feds have, but they do definitely have some evidence. Now whether that evidence is strong enough for a conviction or not remains to be seen.

And for the record the "well I didn't know for sure that he was actually going to export the cues even though he said he was" or "well even though he lives in China and flew in from China he never specifically told me he was going to fly back there with the cues" and similar arguments don't hold water or work. It goes back to what you "should have known", meaning what a reasonable and prudent person who wasn't intentionally trying to ignore the facts would likely believe or highly suspect.

For example, you go to the convenience store and a 16 yr old is standing around outside and as you approach they explain to you that their mom sent them to the store to buy beer for her but they can't because the store won't sell it to them, so would you please buy them the beer so they can take it back to their mom. You can't use the "well I didn't know the 16 year old was actually going to drink it himself and it was actually for him because he told me it was for his mom" or "he never told me who it was for so I had no way to know for sure it was for him" or "he never told me he might drink it" and other similar arguments. Well I guess you can use those arguments but they won't work under the law. A reasonable and prudent person would have immediately suspected the story was BS and the 16 yr old was just trying to get beer for themselves and that is kind of how "should have known" works. "Should have known" is often a case where you did know or highly suspected but were just trying to play dumb for whatever reasons whether it be in an attempt to fool yourself or fool others.

 

[overlord]

He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.

Ernie is a much better human being than you are. I always am impressed with folk that do something very well.

The guy is 75 years old. For you to act as judge and jury with the facts unclear is reprehensible. Ernie is not guilty of anything until this case is adjudicated.

 

[jasonlaus]

I'm sure I'll get some flack on here for this but I've never understood why people are ok with using ivory in a cue unless it is that legal stuff from a long time ago.

So many people try to justify it for some reason- maybe to make themselves feel better.

If Ernie did commit a crime he should be tried and serve out his sentence. It doesn't matter if you commit a crime without knowing. I hear he is a nice guy and I hope he is proven not guilty but in this case the law is justified in my opinion and it all is there to prevent hunting of an endangered species. Elephants are endangered because of us humans, God forbid we try and rectify our mistake by not using a part of an elephant in a cue. Just use one of the myriad other ivory substitutes and get over it.

I don't think anybody here is wanting to use illegal Ivory. As far as I know most(or all) cuemakers have pre-ban Ivory.
What we're upset about is taking something that was legal and making it illegal and with that making it worthless(if you follow the law).

Making our Ivory illegal will not save one single Elephant! Destroying the cue/Ivory will not save a single Elephant.

I would bet that most people on here agree with the Ivory ban and would not use "Illegal" Ivory. What they don't agree with is making us criminals for something that was legal.
Jason

 

[Michael Webb]

I don't think anybody here is wanting to use illegal Ivory. As far as I know most(or all) cuemakers have pre-ban Ivory.
What we're upset about is taking something that was legal and making it illegal and with that making it worthless(if you follow the law).

Making our Ivory illegal will not save one single Elephant! Destroying the cue/Ivory will not save a single Elephant.

I would bet that most people on here agree with the Ivory ban and would not use "Illegal" Ivory. What they don't agree with is making us criminals for something that was legal.
Jason

That might just be the most logical post I've read so far in this thread.
Thank you.

 

[Type79]

I don't think anybody here is wanting to use illegal Ivory. As far as I know most(or all) cuemakers have pre-ban Ivory.
What we're upset about is taking something that was legal and making it illegal and with that making it worthless(if you follow the law).

Making our Ivory illegal will not save one single Elephant! Destroying the cue/Ivory will not save a single Elephant.

I would bet that most people on here agree with the Ivory ban and would not use "Illegal" Ivory. What they don't agree with is making us criminals for something that was legal.
Jason

This is right on point.

By rendering something worthless that was acquired legally is in U.S. law is known as "taking" and it is unjust to do so without compensation.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

This is right on point.

By rendering something worthless that was acquired legally is in U.S. law is known as "taking" and it is unjust to do so without compensation.

Slavery was legal until 1810. Are you suggesting their masters be fairly compensated for losing his slaves? I mean, they were obtained legally, right?

 

[justaplayer]

I dunno when the transaction took place, but Chady Lui and Azen (Zen Cues) were arrested late April when the cues were discovered in their luggage. Chady is still being held, not sure about the other guy.

DING DING...we have a winner.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

Making our Ivory illegal will not save one single Elephant! Destroying the cue/Ivory will not save a single Elephant.

So how do you explain elephant populations recovering between 1989 and 1999, when the trade of ivory was illegal? Just wondering. You know, seeing as you said making ivory illegal wouldn't save a single elephant. You're actually right. It saved thousands.

Are you people really this dense?

Argue with the numbers. Between 1989 and 1999, elephants went from "endangered", to "protected". That means there was an improvement in the population.

 

[JoeyInCali]

So how do you explain elephant populations recovering between 1989 and 1999, when the trade of ivory was illegal? Just wondering. You know, seeing as you said making ivory illegal wouldn't save a single elephant. You're actually right. It saved thousands.

Are you people really this dense?

Argue with the numbers. Between 1989 and 1999, elephants went from "endangered", to "protected". That means there was an improvement in the population.

Because they improved their conservation program.
Then what happened after that ? The ivory exportation to the US was still illegal. How come they kept shooting elephants then?

The new laws here ain't going to save the elephants .
I'll bet you $1000.
There will be more dead elephants by the end of the year .
NOT ONE ELEPHANT WILL BE SAVED BECAUSE IT IVORY trade is illegal in the US.
We can escrow the money now if you want.